Apple's approach to Mac OS X
Why did Apple make Mac OS X so flashy and thus so slow? Instead of making a solid, functional OS with a simple interface to which they would add in the future, they did just the opposite ? a flashy, eye-candy-everywhere Aqua GUI on top of a half-baked system OS. No wonder 10.0 and even 10.1 run slow: most of the processor time is spent on transparencies, genie effects, and OpenGL everywhere. And don't give me this crap of how Macs just aren't fast enough to run OS X ? Linux PPC (and OS 9, for that matter) runs great on my 75 MHz 7200. If only Apple would give us the option to turn off all this fluff (like XP, I'm sorry to say), we Mac users might actually have a stable and fast OS to work with!
I think Mac OS X is a great step in the right direction, but right now we're walking backwards.
[ 04-01-2002: Message edited by: Carbon3 ]</p>
I think Mac OS X is a great step in the right direction, but right now we're walking backwards.
[ 04-01-2002: Message edited by: Carbon3 ]</p>
Comments
It's an OS for todays technology, like the imac. and tomorrows use. (Yes, they shouldn't have promised all that ,backwards compability)... If they can make the ibook G4, X will run great across the whole product line... If you design an OS for the 7200, then your not designing a OS for the future.
Sorry...
"Because Linux doesn't sell..."
UNIX/Linux with Mac APIs (in other words, a streamlined Mac OS X) and the applications that followed would sell very well. The lack of a competitive productivity suite and other applications are one of the only reasons Linux doesn't sell well. Porting Mac APIs to UNIX/Linux (as Mac OS X has done) somewhat fixes this problem.
Originally posted by New:
"It's an OS for todays technology, like the imac. and tomorrows use. (Yes, they shouldn't have promised all that ,backwards compability)... If they can make the ibook G4, X will run great across the whole product line... If you design an OS for the 7200, then your not designing a OS for the future."
What are you talking about? Linux and UNIX weren't designed for specific hardware (unlike DOS). Yet the same Linux that runs huge supercomputers serves millions of pages a month from a 200 MHz 7300 for ResExcellence. They are both open, expandable operating systems that ARE the future and evolve with it. What I'm saying is that if Apple removed all the flashy eye candy from Mac OS X, we would be able to use it comfortably on a 200 MHz machine, just like we would Mac OS 9, UNIX, Linux, OpenStep, NeXTStep, and OS/2.
Why not run one of those systems then? You are asking for for Symbian 7 to run on your Casio watch...
I just don't see the need for X to run on hardware that hasn't been made for years...
XP is a different story, mainly because some companys still produce crappy PC (with Celrons in them)...
C'Mon guys, nothing you say about how Apple "should" have done something is going to change what they DID do... rehashing the same arguments about how slow OS X is for you and how "halfbaked" this supposedly crappy OS is is DUMB... Apple knows what their goal is... and amazingly enough, they have people who's job it is to research and develop this stuff... if there is ZERO demand for something Apple isn't going to waste thier time... there is OBVIOUSLY something about Aqua and "all this" Quartz transparency that people like and are willing to buy... if not, we'd still be in OS 9 END OF STORY.
BTW 10.1.3 runs beutifully for me on a 500 G3 iBook and I do Professional work off of it ALL day long... so it's obviously not a POS.
Mac Guru
<strong>Originally posted by New:
"Because Linux doesn't sell..."
UNIX/Linux with Mac APIs (in other words, a streamlined Mac OS X) and the applications that followed would sell very well. The lack of a competitive productivity suite and other applications are one of the only reasons Linux doesn't sell well. Porting Mac APIs to UNIX/Linux (as Mac OS X has done) somewhat fixes this problem.
Originally posted by New:
"It's an OS for todays technology, like the imac. and tomorrows use. (Yes, they shouldn't have promised all that ,backwards compability)... If they can make the ibook G4, X will run great across the whole product line... If you design an OS for the 7200, then your not designing a OS for the future."
What are you talking about? Linux and UNIX weren't designed for specific hardware (unlike DOS). Yet the same Linux that runs huge supercomputers serves millions of pages a month from a 200 MHz 7300 for ResExcellence. They are both open, expandable operating systems that ARE the future and evolve with it. What I'm saying is that if Apple removed all the flashy eye candy from Mac OS X, we would be able to use it comfortably on a 200 MHz machine, just like we would Mac OS 9, UNIX, Linux, OpenStep, NeXTStep, and OS/2.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wow, congrats on all that bullcrap. Do you have any idea what you're talking about? The fact that you read AND believe Meader smashes your credibility even further.
Why doesn't it run on a 200MHz PPC? Because Apple only lets it run on G3+, so you have to go to 233 to start running it (no such a big jump).
I find it dog slow on a G3 350, as a user, but the same hardware produces a speedy server.
So, the real problem with X is the sluggish interface, which does rely on new tech/APIs - I don't see it ever getting fixed.
In fact, this is pretty much the same as any OS and a slow processor, it's the GUI/user interaction that takes up the processor speed - I'm sure the same would be true of Linux (if it had a decent GUI) and is true of Win.
<strong>Why did Apple make Mac OS X so flashy and thus so slow? ...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why indeed! Your rhetorical question points to one of the big issues we users have with Apple - none of us knows what is Apple's strategy. Long ago we sort of had an idea that they were making "insanely great computers" and "computers for the rest of us" and we had the interface and usability guidelines to give some indication of the targets. Now, although Apple is doing lots of good things, trying to figure out where they are headed involves more "reading of the tea leaves" than before.
My impression is that the marketing group decided that making a beautiful GUI was more important for gaining sales than making a fast GUI. As an aside, they may have figured that in a year or so the hardware would speed up enough to make the OS speedy as well as beautiful. Kind of like Intel's marketing group decided that MHz was more important than actual performance.
I love the GUI of OS X. It's simple, a hell of a lot more simple than OS 9's, but just as powerful (at least, it will be as soon as we get spring loaded folders). It's beautiful as well. To some of us, beauty matters. Eye candy is nice when it's not too overt, and Aqua has enough understatement for me.
FWIW, I run OS X on a G4 400 Powermac, and it's ok. Sure it would be nice if it were faster, but I can understand why Apple want's to implement a new display technology, Quartz, with OS X, even if it's a bit ahead of the hardware. Because to introduce OS X, and then a couple years later switch to Quartz, that would piss off a lot of developers. Better to switch everything at once.
Also, I suspect that Apple planned on having faster CPUs when OS X was released, and got screwed by Moto.
Furthermore...if rumors are to be believed, Apple is working to bring video card acceleration to OS X's GUI, for all Nvidia cards and Radeon on up for ATI. Maybe this is true, maybe not, but if so, then once 10.2 is here complaints about performance will die down a bit.
Finally, OS X runs fine on all of Apple's new hardware, which is the most we can really expect. It would be nice if Apple made OS X scream on everything newer than a 68k Mac , but I'm happy with the current OS X myself.
As to your question:
<strong> [quote]
Why did Apple make Mac OS X so flashy and thus so slow?
<hr></blockquote></strong>
You are assuming 2 things, neither are correct. The OS seems slow because everything is rendered as a PDF. While there is a performance hit in some domains, I love the ability to make a PDF from ANY OS X native application. It's invaluable and one of the best things about the OS.
Junky's right, some of us LIKE Aqua.
That is from Terminal to show how long my system has been running (for those who do not know). I push Mac OS X beyond its limits with Aqua and Quartz. Sure the system hiccups once and a while but I am very pleased with the performance, in fact I could not be happier. If Mac OS X were just like Mac OS 9, there would be nothing revolutionary and no one would be turning their heads to look at Apple as an alternative.
Oh and I am running on a G4 450MHz with 512MBs of RAM.
The first two months I bitched and moaned about how it was slow, but I got over it. It's just a better OS than Mac OS 9, and it's also a different OS than Mac OS 9.
It was mentioned by someone in another post who summed it up best. To paraphrase: If you treat Mac OS X like a replacement for Mac OS 9 (that is, think of it as just another upgrade) you're going to hate it, and you won't adapt properly. But if you approach X as a brand new operating system, which is what it is, it will be a little easier.
I don't think Mac OS X is flashy at all. It has design elements we incorporate into things all of the time, and while it feels slow now, in a few years when you get a new machine, and the OS is optimized more, you'll love it.
OS X is great and stable.
<strong> was mentioned by someone in another post who summed it up best. To paraphrase: If you treat Mac OS X like a replacement for Mac OS 9 (that is, think of it as just another upgrade) you're going to hate it, and you won't adapt properly. But if you approach X as a brand new operating system, which is what it is, it will be a little easier.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, what I said was: if you try to make OS X OS 9, you're gonna hate it because it ISN'T OS 9. MacOS X is a brand new operating system with a brand new, more effecient workflow. Once you get used to working within the OS X workflow, OS 9 will look and feel silly and old in comparison.
In other words, give OS X a shot on its own terms, not on OS 9's terms. Once you get past the learning curve, you'll find yourself wondering how you ever worked any other way.
And, by the way, I LOVE Aqua. The GUI is one or two updates away from becoming perfect in terms of speed and functionality, but even then, Aqua is an absolute doll to work in.
<strong>Why did Apple make Mac OS X so flashy and thus so slow?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree. I can barely stand to use OS X. Who cares about uptime when the thing is slow every second you use it?
click...
CD spin...
wait...
CD spin...
click...
wait...
It's distractingly slow, so I spend most of my time in 9 still. I'm on the fence as to whether I'll upgrade all my software when Photoshop 7 appears, or just e-bay all my Macs. I just built a dual Athlon 1.5 for $1400. It flat smokes the resin off my dual 800 Powermac.
When Apple decided not to buy BeOS, I should have sold all my Macs. Now I got a bunch of "supercomputers" that seem to struggle to redraw their own screen. Real impressive.
I use Linux, w2k and Mac OS9/X. I'm not biased, just unhappy at yet another missed Mac opportunity.
I think most of the people who are having the hardest time with X are those still using a G3. On my Dual 450 G4 it runs just fine, and it isn't distractingly slow, and even if I get a spinning rainbow thingy in one app, I can switch to another app and keep working. That spinning CD doesn't stop the whole system. The Finder doesn't even do it to me enough to pop an artery over it....
It's not for creative faeries like myself.
You can't polish a turd. Linux looks pants no matter what theme you dress it up in. Still looks 'square' et al.
I just want to use Photoshop with a fantastic gui. Having used Photoshop on W2000 I can say just how much I miss my Mac tower. (I run on PC at moment...waiting for G5...)
Sales. Apple had to get into 21st century to grow their share of the IT cake. Simple as that. New tech, open GL, quartz, quicktime, unix... Jeez. I don't think any other company could have done any better with legacy code to consider.
It looks elegant and classy. I think 'XP' is flashy! They ripped off a gaudy fisher price 2nd rater. The REAL 'X' is quite restraint by comparison. I find it quite amusing those who think aqua really stands out. Alongside xp it looks much more considered...
On a studio display...stunning.
Those gem icons really show the benefit of the quartz system.
Given the move to g4 and the pending g5s...it won't be an issue...'speed'.
Aqua is more than responsive on my wife's ibook at 600mhz.
Lemon Bon Bon
:cool: